Where To Start On The Existence Of God

[True Guidance]

It is possible that God exists and it is possible that God does not exists.

 

It is arrogance to reach a conclusion about God and never reshape this conclusion as you progress and learn from life and reflecting on life.

 

Instead of indulging in an endless debate on God's existence, we should focus our energies to a debate on how to research the existence of God.

 

Then let everybody form his own beliefs based on this research and life experience.

 

But more importantly, is for both sides to acknowledge that they must keep researching by bringing fresh ideas and new life experiences.

 

Or they fall back into arrogance.

[Jun]

we should focus our energies to a debate on how to research the existence of God.

 

How do you propose man should research the existence of a man-made supernatural being? That is the same as saying let's research the existence of Santa Claus.

[True Guidance]

we should focus our energies to a debate on how to research the existence of God.

 

How do you propose man should research the existence of a man-made supernatural being? That is the same as saying let's research the existence of Santa Claus.

 

 

This is what they said about earth being flat .................. both religious and nonreligious at some point in history

[Jun]

we should focus our energies to a debate on how to research the existence of God.

 

How do you propose man should research the existence of a man-made supernatural being? That is the same as saying let's research the existence of Santa Claus.

 

 

This is what they said about earth being flat .................. both religious and nonreligious at some point in history

 

You didn't answer my question.

How does one reserch such an idea?

 

Sit down in prayer and ask "God" if he's there? Oh wait, Christians and Muslims do that all the time and has he answered them?

[Dhampir]

It is arrogance to reach a conclusion about God and never reshape this conclusion as you progress and learn from life and reflecting on life.

Your problem here is that you think conclusions-- about anything really-- are static, which is wrong, especially when dealing with open minded individuals such as ourselves. But then again, our rejection of the idea means we're anything but to you, doesn't it?

 

Our conclusions about god are constantly changing, in light of the dearth of evidence we have to evaluate. In order to research the existence of god, we need to either acquire information about god that either somehow managed to elude the very vigorous study that most of us put in to arrive at our conclusion, or which didn't previously exist, in order to begin factoring that possibility, or, we have to reinterpret the data we do have as evidence of god, which of course is beyond us at this point, said evidence appearing completely hollow.

On the other hand, your argument does seem to require the a priori assumption that god exists in the first place, which of course is defeating to the purpose of honest research.

[mwc]

Instead of indulging in an endless debate on God's existence, we should focus our energies to a debate on how to research the existence of God.

 

Then let everybody form his own beliefs based on this research and life experience.

Yes...this IS the only way.

 

No. Wait. The gods could simply reveal themselves to all people simultaneously removing the need for this "guesswork" once and for all. A uniform message delivered personally to all people even newborns. Personal experience and the need for "research" doesn't even enter the equation then.

 

mwc

[True Guidance]

On the other hand, your argument does seem to require the a priori assumption that god exists in the first place, which of course is defeating to the purpose of honest research.[/u][/i]

 

for me I see the argument is still valid without any priori assumptions. That is God may or may not exist.

[True Guidance]

No. Wait. The gods could simply reveal themselves to all people simultaneously removing the need for this "guesswork" once and for all. A uniform message delivered personally to all people even newborns. Personal experience and the need for "research" doesn't even enter the equation then.

 

mwc

 

To be fair you should also consider the possibility that God may have revealed himself to us in the form of signs, reasoning, or a universal message embeded in us.

[Dhampir]

for me I see the argument is still valid without any priori assumptions. That is God may or may not exist.

You may, but it's just not true. Your argument is pretty much to say that our conclusions about god are static, and therefore incorrect, whether god exists or not.

 

You say that we shouldn't worry about the debate, that we should consider how to research god (as opposed, I guess, to demonstrating or proving god), yet those of us who've concluded that there is likely no god to speak of, or that god is uninvolved for any number of reasons, have done so because none of the evidence that exists (or has been shown, and btw, no holy text, or religion constitutes evidence,) points to god's presence, whatever god is. Therefore, to come to a place where almost no one sees things your way, and say that we chould consider how to research something that doesn't bear it, most certainly requires an a priori assumption, not only of the existence of god, but of the christian one at that.

 

I mean, how many people in China do you think this idea you present would even make sense to?

[Dhampir]

I think we should consider how to go about researching the existence of FSM, IPU'S, and the tooth fairy.

[mwc]

To be fair you should also consider the possibility that God may have revealed himself to us in the form of signs, reasoning, or a universal message embeded in us.

If we have to debate the issue...then no, I don't as that defeats the purpose.

 

mwc

[Dhampir]

...but of the christian one at that.

Whoops. Sorry bout that. Argument still applies to Islam though.

[Asimov]

It is possible that God exists and it is possible that God does not exists.

 

Very astute.

 

It is arrogance to reach a conclusion about God and never reshape this conclusion as you progress and learn from life and reflecting on life.

 

Depends.

 

Instead of indulging in an endless debate on God's existence, we should focus our energies to a debate on how to research the existence of God.

 

Why?

 

But more importantly, is for both sides to acknowledge that they must keep researching by bringing fresh ideas and new life experiences.

 

Or they fall back into arrogance.

 

That's nice.

[DarthOkkata]

It is possible that God exists and it is possible that God does not exists.

 

It's possible there are Purple Unicorns living under the surface of Mars, but it is much more likely they don't.

 

It is arrogance to reach a conclusion about God and never reshape this conclusion as you progress and learn from life and reflecting on life.

 

It's even more arrogant to assume that he does exist despite the lack of, and evencontradictory evidence.

 

Instead of indulging in an endless debate on God's existence, we should focus our energies to a debate on how to research the existence of God.

 

Just like I should focus all my energies on disproving gravity. I'm certain that my theory that both we and the earth are expanding at an equal exponential rate, so we don't notice, and it just seems like there's gravity. I'm sure I'm right.

 

Simple answer: That's not research, it's looking for any evidence that supports your particular viewpoint and ignoring that which doesn't.

 

Then let everybody form his own beliefs based on this research and life experience.

 

Oh, you mean like we do now?

 

But more importantly, is for both sides to acknowledge that they must keep researching by bringing fresh ideas and new life experiences.

 

Which Theist have historically opposed tooth and nail. Religion doesn't welcome change, or new ideas. It fights them to promote it's own narrow views of the Universe.

 

Or they fall back into arrogance.

 

That's assuming they got out if it in the first place.

[DarthOkkata]

To be fair you should also consider the possibility that God may have revealed himself to us in the form of signs, reasoning, or a universal message embeded in us.

 

Signs only the faithful can see? Funny how none of the rest of us noticed. Assuming that we 'aren't open' or 'listening' is arrogant and insulting. Also, I fail to see what 'reasoning' has to do with theistic views. Rationality doesn't mix with dogma, hense the hijacking of the word 'faith'.

[Jun]

To be fair you should also consider the possibility that God may have revealed himself to us in the form of signs, reasoning, or a universal message embeded in us.

 

Like crop-circles?

[True Guidance]

To be fair you should also consider the possibility that God may have revealed himself to us in the form of signs, reasoning, or a universal message embeded in us.

 

Signs only the faithful can see? Funny how none of the rest of us noticed. Assuming that we 'aren't open' or 'listening' is arrogant and insulting. Also, I fail to see what 'reasoning' has to do with theistic views. Rationality doesn't mix with dogma, hense the hijacking of the word 'faith'.

 

 

first of all .......... seeing, hearing, tasting, ... etc (brain signals) are not necessarily conclusive on proving the existence of entities

 

there is the possibility of existence of God => there is the possibility that God created us => there is the possibility that God wants us to acknowledge his existence => there is the possibility that henceforth he created us in a way that makes us capable of finding him=> there is the possibility that this seeking instincts are embedded in our human nature, reasoning, or spiritual forces

 

or

 

there is the possibility of the opposite

 

 

in other words, there is a finite probability for everything

[Jun]

To be fair you should also consider the possibility that God may have revealed himself to us in the form of signs, reasoning, or a universal message embeded in us.

 

Signs only the faithful can see? Funny how none of the rest of us noticed. Assuming that we 'aren't open' or 'listening' is arrogant and insulting. Also, I fail to see what 'reasoning' has to do with theistic views. Rationality doesn't mix with dogma, hense the hijacking of the word 'faith'.

 

 

first of all .......... seeing, hearing, tasting, ... etc (brain signals) are not necessarily conclusive on proving the existence of entities

 

there is the possibility of existence of God => there is the possibility that God created us => there is the possibility that God wants us to acknowledge his existence => there is the possibility that henceforth he created us in a way that makes us capable of finding him=> there is the possibility that this seeking instincts are embedded in our human nature, reasoning, or spiritual forces

 

or

 

there is the possibility of the opposite

 

 

in other words, there is a finite probability for everything

 

?

[Grandpa Harley]

To be fair you should also consider the possibility that God may have revealed himself to us in the form of signs, reasoning, or a universal message embeded in us.

 

Signs only the faithful can see? Funny how none of the rest of us noticed. Assuming that we 'aren't open' or 'listening' is arrogant and insulting. Also, I fail to see what 'reasoning' has to do with theistic views. Rationality doesn't mix with dogma, hense the hijacking of the word 'faith'.

 

 

first of all .......... seeing, hearing, tasting, ... etc (brain signals) are not necessarily conclusive on proving the existence of entities

 

there is the possibility of existence of God => there is the possibility that God created us => there is the possibility that God wants us to acknowledge his existence => there is the possibility that henceforth he created us in a way that makes us capable of finding him=> there is the possibility that this seeking instincts are embedded in our human nature, reasoning, or spiritual forces

 

or

 

there is the possibility of the opposite

 

 

in other words, there is a finite probability for everything

By guessing? We're lab rats in a game show?

[True Guidance]

By guessing? We're lab rats in a game show?

 

that is completely not my intention and it is against my faith

 

i believe we are put on this earth to prove ourselves and be able to differentiate and therefore be treated differently. we are all unique because we have the freedom of choice and therefore the ability to be different. it is like two people working in the same company. one chooses to work hard and one chooses to be lazy. they choose to differentiate themselves and therefore they both should have different images in the company in terms of rewards, salary, position, complements ... etc. you cannot call those two employees lab rats owned by the management.

[Vigile]

there is the possibility of existence of God => there is the possibility that God created us => there is the possibility that God wants us to acknowledge his existence => there is the possibility that henceforth he created us in a way that makes us capable of finding him=> there is the possibility that this seeking instincts are embedded in our human nature, reasoning, or spiritual forces

 

There is the posibility that this entire list is contrived.

 

in other words, there is a finite probability for everything

 

That's right there is. Just like there is the posibility that an invisible elephant hides under my bed at night. But don't you think that there is a reason that some posibilities are just not taken seriously due to their absurdity?

 

Edit: Did you actually mean "finite"? How so?

[True Guidance]

there is the possibility of existence of God => there is the possibility that God created us => there is the possibility that God wants us to acknowledge his existence => there is the possibility that henceforth he created us in a way that makes us capable of finding him=> there is the possibility that this seeking instincts are embedded in our human nature, reasoning, or spiritual forces

 

There is the posibility that this entire list is contrived.

 

in other words, there is a finite probability for everything

 

That's right there is. Just like there is the posibility that an invisible elephant hides under my bed at night. But don't you think that there is a reason that some posibilities are just not taken seriously due to their absurdity?

 

Edit: Did you actually mean "finite"? How so?

 

 

or to the fact that the elephant existence has very low probability

[Jun]

it is against my faith

 

So your faith determines your life?

 

Does it tell you what you can and cannot say/do?

 

You are restricted by your blindness er, faith, how is that logical?

 

How is that reality?

 

What happens when you go against your faith? Do you get to sit on the naughty step? Do you get struck by lightning? Do you get locked out?

 

How do you know what is and isn't against your faith? Are the rules set out in writing? Do you sign a contract? Is it legally binding?

 

i believe we are put on this earth..........

 

Put on this Earth. Those words were the worst I'd hear from Christians. Tell me, why are tapeworms put on this Earth? Or ticks? Viral infections? Aids? Are you going to give us the ol' "grand scheme" story?

[Vigile]

or to the fact that the elephant existence has very low probability

 

And an invisible guy in the sky, who was not created, but who created everything has a high probability? Probabilities are measured by current data. I know, it's my job to know this. Can you please point us toward the data that increases the probability of this creator?

[mwc]

Is this really your whole argument? That "god" exists in some "shades of gray" area? If there is a 99.9% chance against but a .1% chance for that we must somehow allow that "god" must be in that .1%?

 

Seriously, can no "god" truly do no better than this?

 

So back to my earlier statement. Once people are born theists, as opposed to atheists, with "god" no longer up for debates like this you will have a much stronger case indeed. But the fact that you are sitting here trying to convince me (us) that an all powerful being is being "coy" with the whole of humanity is simply ridiculous.

 

If the entire world woke up tomorrow and *knew* this "god," what it wanted and so forth, then you might have an actual "god" on your hands. If any people spoke of "god" they would immediately agree on all things regarding this creature without being taught by anyone. A baby would be born "knowing" this "god" and, if no one ever mentioned this "god" once during its life, the moment it could speak it could speak of this "god" as completely as the adults because "god" made itself known to the child from the first moment of its existence. No one needs to learn of "god." No one needs to teach of "god." "God" is simply "known." No one person has more or less knowledge of "god" than any other person so that no one person or group can claim "god" as their own. What "god" makes known to one it makes known to all and vice-versa. It is unambiguous. "God" does not require us to "decipher" it since that allows for a person or group to "own" it and, as I stated, a "god" would not need to do this. Universal knowledge. Universal understanding. Universal access.

 

Is the "god" you're trying to describe like this? No. It "hides." It sends "signs." it has a "book." This means that it has a special revelation. Only certain people over time were privy to this information. "Chosen" people. Your "god" is man-made because only men cannot do what I describe above. A "god" can. All "gods" are man made because they need men to perform their actions. A true "god" would simply, and easily, do it themselves. So I am sorry that your "god" will never pass my test as outlined above. The fact that I don't already know your "god" puts you at a distinct disadvantage (Universal knowledge).

 

mwc